In other words…

My response to what I heard from the Tory Party Conference has evoked strong responses from those who think I should keep my mouth shut on anything but ‘religion’ and from those who agree with me. Why did I respond the way I did? Simple answer: I thought questions should be asked and they should be asked as clearly as possible. But, did I get it right?

I have read the extraordinary responses from a number of websites (and object to anonymous writers hiding while writing) but find it most astonishing that a bishop is deemed to be ‘political’ when expressing views the reader/audience doesn’t like, but speaking sense when expressing views the reader/audience does agree with.

However, I think I could have expressed myself differently and put my points in the form of questions rather than statements.

For the record let me say this: the reason I didn’t comment on the other party conferences is simply that I wasn’t here to witness them. However, it is ridiculous to assume that to question one party’s statements implies uncritical support of another party. The next election is going to be a tough one for many people like me who do not find themselves fitting into any party ‘slot’.

Although I agree I could have written the earlier observations differently, I don’t retract the questions that evoked them.

1. (Unless I am mistaken) why was there no mention in Cameron’s speech of the banking crisis, its causes, the question of regulation or of the need to address the anomalies that now appear? The fact that the current government is also ducking some of these questions is not reason enough for others to duck them. The taxpayer bailed out the banks and will pay for the privilege of having done so – yet it appears that little has changed in how the banks benefit from the current system.

2. Cameron gave a good speech, well crafted and full of vision. But he begged a lot of questions about how that vision might be realised.

Was the financial crisis caused by ‘big government’? If so, how and by whom?

If the State is to be reduced, which bits and to what effect?

Did ‘more government’ really ‘get us into this mess’ – or was there a different cause? (I don’t follow the logic here at all.)

Which bits of Britain are ‘broken’? How are they to be mended and by whom?

What is the ‘British sense of community’?

Is there not a problem when politicians speak of conditions of human society of which they have no experience? I would listen and learn from the Camerons on the effects of child bereavement. But I am less sure that the top Tories know what they are talking about when they speak so easily of ‘poverty’. Therefore, my suspicion of what really lies ahead of us if they get into government does not go away. I am not at all sure that the Tory front bench understands (other than intellectually) anything about the ordinary lives of much of the population who have been to ordinary schools and live in ordinary places.

It is fair enough to criticise my extrapolation from my experience in Liverpool under Thatcher (and, as I wrote earlier, Derek Hatton) to today. But, my question might then be: how can today’s Conservatives convince me that they are different (other than in terms of language and rhetoric) and that the poorer people in our society (and I don’t mean the ‘spongers’) will be safe under a Tory Government? Sure Start has been a great success under Labour and the Tories have promised to protect it – but they don’t say how they will do this while combatting debt and reducing ‘government’. I remain unconvinced that there is a connection between vision and strategy here.

I applaud many of the sentiments (it is hard not to applaud ‘family life’, etc.) of Cameron’s speech – but I am not sure what all the rhetoric means. And the fact that I ask this of the Tories does not mean that the same doesn’t apply to the other parties. What reality is likely to lie behind the words? That is where we need more detail and trust has to be grown – partly though having the words challenged.

The local newspaper in Croydon has tried to drive a wedge between me and a local Tory MP. He issued a reasoned response to me and we have discussed it on the phone. He was perhaps more generous and patient than he might have been – or felt. I would expect him to regard my views as misguided – indeed, it would be odd if he didn’t. But he also recognises that voices need to be raised on behalf of the powerless (or less empowered) – and a reasonable debate be allowed to ensue.

It’s good that we can all begin to talk to each other like adults, and about the things which are important to us. These days especially, if you are going to vote for someone, then it needs to be someone you can trust. To be honest, I am finding good bits and bad bits in all of them, and the old distinctions are fading into a confusion of obscurity. It’s so difficult not to be pathologically connected to one’s roots, but even this fact leaves me scratching my bald head for inspiration. I mean, if Labour were once the baby bio that fed my roots, I am not feeling particularly nourished anymore with what passes for sustenance from them these days.

Eeeeeee the world is getting stranger by the day.

PS. The Archbishop was most inspiring today. I don’t know what’s happened recently but I have developed a strange psychological bond with his words. It’s encouraging, for me anyway.

To be castigated and maligned is surely what you can expect from those who do not share your views or do not have an answer to the questions you raise perfectly validly.

There has been criticism of the Church in the past for not speaking out – or alternatively, for getting involved in politics.

Surely Jesus while on earth through the gospels commented many times on the state of the poor and disadvantaged and weak, and upset those who wielded power – that is surely the role of a Bishop today, to tend the flock (in the sense of the Good Shepherd, leading) and not to sit on the sidelines and pray.

McKenzie says: “It’s good that we can all begin to talk to each other like adults, and about the things which are important to us”. Could there be a more simply and beautifully expressed definition of civilisation..

Ernest, I haven’t retracted my questions or the charges I made. What I have said is that I could have expressed them differently. I am not worried about being attacked (especially from anonymous people), but am happy to admit when I think I might have got the mode of expression wrong.

It is a wonderful attribute of sincere Christians that they are able to acknowledge error, even in tone or mode of expression. It is what helps to make discourse rational, and every bishop who contributes to this is a bishop worth hearing, whatever his political views.

It might be observed that any castigation (or, ‘attack’) was primarily because of certain words and phrases which rather undermined the Bishop’s far more important point on taxation. There was simply no need to to refer to Tory ‘rich kids’, ‘OEs’ or ‘chums’. Indeed, by doing so, the Bishop detracted from his far more important questions.

Leaving aside the (erroneous) view that high tax economies do more to alleviate poverty (in fact, the tax take increases as taxes are lowered), there appears to have been a prior disagreement relating to the Conservative Party’s new ECR allies in the European Parliament, with the Bishop apparently referring to them as ‘racists’ and ‘neo-fascists’.

Is there some reason the Bishop did not object to the Conservative Party’s ‘unpleasant’ partners within the EPP?

What about the the Polish Civic Platform, the Deputy Speaker of which rejoiced in a court decision to deprive a lesbian mother of custody of her four-year-old daughter, saying: “The court didn’t bow to pressure from the aggressive homosexual lobby, which came to make a scene as usual”.

And what about Forza Italia, who produced a blatantly ‘homophobic’ poster at the last Italian general election (“Daddy and Papa? This isn’t the family we want!”).

And the German CDU are not above manifestations of racism, having called for the deportation of ‘criminal foreigners’: “We have too many criminal young foreigners… Germany has had a Christian and Western culture for centuries, and foreigners who don’t stick to our rules don’t belong here”. They also campaigned in 2000 under the slogan Kinder statt Inder (‘Children rather than Indians’).

And let us not forget the Austrian People’s Party, whose Secretary General called for the banning of burqas, adding: “If we allow consultations to be held in Turkish, we will one day become Turkish ourselves.”

Why is it only since the Conservative Party forged new alliances in the ECR Group that the Bishop has scrutinised the policies or pronouncements of European ‘racists’ and ‘neo-fascists’?

Cranmer, the reason I didn’t address the Tories’ alliances before then was simply because, like most other people, I (a) didn’t think much about it and (b) wasn’t terribly interested in the Tories’ friends anywhere. But they are now a party likely to take power and these questions become more relevant. Again, to question the Tories is not to imply support for the status quo or the affiliations of other parties. Some would argue (and perhaps I assumed – rightly or wrongly) that to question the Labour Party’s preferences will soon be a matter of nostalgia rather than relevance.

I am happy to redress that balance in due course – especially once the election campaign gets going next year.

+Nick – you raise questions about whether the Conservatives know what they are talking about with respect to poverty. It seems pretty clear (not least from what Cameron said in his speech, and I would credit him with genuine anger on this question) that Iain Duncan Smith’s work at The Centre for Social Justice is going to be driving whatever they do in office. It would be fairer to engage explicitly with that work than simply to say “I am less sure that the top Tories know what they are talking about when they speak so easily of ‘poverty’”.

He has already shelved some of Duncan-Smith’s proposals. That’s why we need to know more and not just approve the sentiments. It isn’t hard to be angry about poverty – genuinely angry – but that is not the same as having some direct experience of it either at first hand or in one’s close society and, therefore, understanding the effects of the statements you make. In my own family there is one member who is seriously incapacitated, who is not a scrounger, but who is now upset and worried about how much more of a breadline he will have to live on in the future.

I may have been a little sharp in expressing my anger and suspicion, but there are many people who need to be convinced as much as I do.

Perhaps the real difficulty in deciding who is right, or with whom you most align, is that neither party seems to have principles any more. The party no longer seems to stand for anything except – what have I got to say to get power by being elected.

The power isn’t sought to bring about a defined world view and change but for its own sake. Does anybody know what the parties really stand for?

So we are left with ephemeral speeches and manifestos that are quickly disregarded and we have no compass to see how the the party will react in future, as yet unknown, situations.

Of course it gets even worse in Europe. The whole new nation of Europe seems to be founded only on the principle of we want (some of us) to get a lot richer at the expense of the rest of the world and we will force that through by lying and cheating. Because there is no European press to hold them to account they get away with even more murder than the UK politicians.

In the UK we have a choice between to (benign?) dictators. In Europe we have no choice but a very much not benign dictatorship, unelected and accountable to nobody.

I think you must have been listening to a completely different speech from the one I heard.

Cameron had plenty to say about the causes of the banking crisis, and the contribution of the tripartite regulatory system set up by Gordon Brown in 1997, and he pledged to restore the regulatory powers of the Bank of England.

On the broken society he quoted from letters sent to him by people driven to desperation by anti social behaviour, and referred to the Fiona Pilkington case. He talked about poverty, crime, addiction, failing schools, sink estates and broken homes.

On poverty he highlighted the marginal tax rate of 96% for somone on benefits who wants to take a part-time job. He also pledged that a future Conservative government would restore the link between the basic state pension and the level of earnings. It addition, a future Conservative government would end the current penalisation of marriage in the tax and benefits system.

As far as incapacity benefit is concerned, he made it clear that anyone genuinely unable to work would continue to be supported by the system.

I would have expected a suffragan Bishop to give a rather more mature and constructive response to such a speech, focussing as it did on issues of social breakdown and moral responsibility, given by someone who will in all probability be Prime Minister within a year.

May I humbly suggest that you start again, set aside the ‘anger and suspicion’ which you freely acknowledge, and actually read the text of the speech again ?http://tinyurl.com/yadmqkk

John, thank you for your measured comments. May I respectfully put two questions back to you:

1. Why should a bishop always respond to political speeches politely and what would ‘constructively’ have looked like? Agreement? Sharp questioning?
2. Do you want bishops to sanitise and spin – or say what they think and feel?

Anyway, I did what you requested and re-read the speech in full. And that was the first problem. Hearing the speech being delivered to the faithful in Manchester draws one into the emotion and the rhetorical power of its delivery. Reading it in print has made me think it is even thinner than I thought on hearing it. I will explain why, but let me affirm that there are things in the speech with which I agree – the pensions analysis, for example – and things that mystify me because they are merely stated and not explained – for example, the link between ‘big govenment and the ‘broken society’.

1. Cameron says: “…we are not going to solve our problems with bigger government. We are going to solve our problems with a stronger
society. Stronger families. Stronger communities. A stronger country. All by rebuilding responsibility.” Marvellous. But what does that mean? What does he understand by ‘family’, ‘community’ and ‘country’? The ‘communities’ that I and my clergy serve are complex and resistant to simplistic definition. ‘Families’ come in many shapes and sizes – despite what I believe to be the best for parents and children. The ‘country’ has to mean more than some nostalgic fantasy of a golden age that never existed. I look forward to hearing how these (and their complexities) are really understood by those likely to be in power in 2010.

2. “Self-belief is infectious”, says Cameron. So, I would add from immersion in some of our poorest communities, is denigration by politicians infectious. He is right to identify people who see no way out of several generations of poverty, unemployment, low aspiration and poor health. Yet successive governments have tried to find ways of addressing this and successive governments have met with limited success. I understand why: it is harder to change a cultural or societal mindset than it is to find a vote-winning policy and stick some money behind it. But if Cameron had admitted the complexity of it all and admitted that some ‘broken’ things might not be capable of mending (in the real world), I would have stood up and applauded him. I think we need evidence that he and his party colleagues understand (more than rationally) the real situations in which many people have lived (and been formed) and continue to live. A change in societal mindset will take generations and not be susceptible to electoral spin every four or five years.

3. “But in Britain today there is a dark side as well. After twelve years of big government, we still have those stubborn social problems. Poverty, crime, addiction. Failing schools. Sink estates. Broken homes.” Twelve years of Labour government followed eighteen years of Tory government during which a good deal of brokenness was caused: to communities, to families and to the country. Yes, there were successes, too. But it is not good enough to be selective in directing blame. What this says to me is that we indeed need a more mature debate – and one that doesn’t pit one party against another, but recognises the complexity, takes an honest look at long-term solutions and creates coalitions for improvement. This was lacking.

4. “What kind of incentive is that? Thirty years ago this party won an election fighting against 98 per cent tax rates on the richest. Today I want us to show even more anger about 96 per cent tax rates on the poorest.” Great point. So, where is the money going to come from to allow the poorest to keep more of their cash if they work? It’s a great rhetorical point – but it just begs a load of further questions.

5. “It is about everyone taking responsibility. The more that we as a society do, the less we will need government to do.” Fine. But what does that actually mean in practice? What will be taken away or added to enable people to ‘take responsibility’? It is hard not to applaud the sentiments in his section on ‘family’ – except that I am none the wiser what would actually happen if he was in power. Keeping health visitors is a good move – my wife is one and works on a complicated outer-London estate. Is the party going to listen to some uncomfortable truths from people like her who spend every week immersed in the details of real people’s lives?

6. “We’re going to make it clear: If you really cannot work, we’ll look after you. But if you can work, you should work and not live off the hard work of others.” Fine. But what if those who can work cannot find jobs where they live? Will we return to the ‘on your bike’ culture of the 1980s where people were liable to exploitation because of deregulation? I was constantly shocked by the ways in which people who did want to work and made considerable sacrifices to do so (like moving without their family to a different part of the country in search of work – not great for ‘family values’) were taken on for twelve weeks, dismissed and then taken back on the following week as if they were someone else: but with no holiday entitlement, no proper wage and little or no protection, especially if they became ill.

I don’t want to go on with detail after detail, but I hope you get my difficulty with all this. The sentiments are laudable (in some cases), but I don’t see what they will look like in reality. OK, that needs to be worked out in the manifesto in due course. But people have a right and society has a democratic obligation to articulate the questions that need to be asked in order that we know not only for whom we are voting, but also what their words will look like in action. For me (and for many people now in touch with me), Cameron’s speech has raised more questions than answers.

Dear Nick, Congratulations an your website,and also for speaking up about important political issues. It is a very good thing that people in your position are courageous enough and free with your criticisms and opinions.In the past perhaps clergy have not spoken out enough on behalf of people. I feel that the organization of the “Church” ,in its broadest sense ,has a duty to speak out against any injustice. There is of course no perfect society,due to human error ,and Sin. Greed and selfishness are two of the more obvious problems we face,and lack of Community and general responsibilty for each other. Political laxity in these areas has been widespread. I believe in true Christian Socialism,which tends to exclude a lot of the antics of the Labour Party,as well as ostensibly the philosophy of any Tory party. Can the “leopard change his spots.”?,with regard to Cameron and his New Tories. I hope so,but we might have to wait and see !

The more likely it is that the Conservatives will form our next government, the more we owe it to ourselves to ask tough questions. If a government promises to protect the poor, it’s the pastoral responsibility of the Church to make sure they mean it, and they’ll do it properly.

Though I like some Conservative policies, I’ll probably be getting more critical and questioning of the Tories as the election draws closer, rather than less. If we don’t scrutinise them now, it will be too late once we’ve elected them.

I’ve read the speech and blogged on it in detail. Cameron clearly blamed the financial crisis on big government. That’s simply not true. It is both more complex than that, and in part due to a lack of regulation. There was a tension in Cameron’s speech between his attack on ‘big government’, but his turning to government as the solution in areas like poverty and the broken society. Until we can separate button-pushing rhetoric from deeply-held convictions, we need to keep asking tough questions.

Freddie and Fannie detach the asset ( house) from deal and create “financial instruments” – selling the “profitable” high rate of interest disguising the bad with the good by bundling them together. Other Banks rebundle and sell on, so soon, the truth is not only unknown but unknowable.

Clinton repeals 1933 Glass Steagley Act designed to separate banks from investment-Casinos to facilitate creation of CitiBank, the first Bank “ Too big to fail”. AIG and others start insuring the bad risks of other Banks in years of boom and also “become too big to fail.”

Who cares? Clintons reduce Capital Taxes causing Housing Boom. Poor can refinance as house price inflated – twist to spiral. Freddie and Fannie pay towards all Washington politicians’ campaign Finance ( always more to majority Party). Biggest taker is Chris Dodd ( Dem Conn) – head of Banking Committee, Also very high, Barney Frank ( Dem Mass) Head of Financial Services Committee whose boyfriend is head of ” New Business Development” at Fannie. Nothing worrying about there – obviously!

Economy tanks, poor can’t pay mortgages in States – everything unravels etc. Northern Rock bailed out: we can’t afford to do same for RBS, Government persuades Lloyds to do so, they tank also ruining another decent business.

Obama runs on unprecedented undisclosed unregulated campaign funds ( at least $3/4 billion) drawn from Hollywood and Wall Street( quelle surprise!). Within three months spends more than EVERY OTHER US ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY!!! ( including ALL wars) bailing out Wall Street with our grandchildren’s money. The stimulous package is so big no legislator has read it.

My favourite “Pork from Big Government? Harry Reid Dem Nevada had project plans rejected by State electorate, but gets funding from in stimulous package for railway to connect Disney Hotel in Las Vegas to Midnite Bunny Ranch Brothel! The girls there are in a similar business to the Washington politicians, save they pay their own way, look after their own health, are responsive to taxpayers needs, pay their taxes and always deliver on time and on budget!

The debate in Cranmer’s comments seems to have a good discussion, both in support and against.

If you felt “bounced back at” by others’ comments, it’s perhaps just a different culture in political blog commentary – nothing to worry about. Personally, I see nothing wrong with a Bishop having a party allegiance, as long as you could maintain (and indicate in a way that your readers can follow) the different “Nick as Bishop” and “Nick as individual with a political opinion” the two different hats, while showing how they inform each other.

We all have different ways of doing this – I have categories “personal view”, “knockabout”, “humour”, “rants” and others to help flag up differences, as we have a wide range of contributors, and encourage them to apply some old-fashioned journalistic ideas such as indicating the difference between fact and opinion.

It’s prompted me to do some thinking about how political debate uses “labels”, and that they can be either helpful or damaging.

They are helpful when they provide a lens into the underlying questions, and keep emphasis where it is needed. I’d consider “duck island Parliament” to be a label which has kept the focus where it desperately needs to be, for a question which needs long term examination in the face of foot-dragging.

Equally, Hazel Blears’ “cynical nihilists of the political blogosphere” was a damaging label it was a generatisation and purely rhetorical.

Labels which are wrong will not usually stick, although they can be turned into narratives and eventually change the weather, *sometimes*.

The danger in the blog form, and also in punch-and-judy politics, is that debate is just in labels and finger-jabbings without going beneath the surface. In that case we may get the traffic and the publicity, but the debate is superficial.

In my view, the response to the Parliamentary MP Expenses / governance scandal is not to reject politics, but to broaden politics – i.e., get beyond surface labels and involve a wider range of people / groups. The domain of politics should be everything to do with civil society.

i.e., You have no excuse *not* to comment on political questions, and the same goes for everybody else.

Matt, thanks for this – helpful distinctions. I am not worried about being ‘bounced back against’ – that’s the nature of the blogging beast – but I am worried about the assumption that bishops should compartmentalise life and limit themselves to the ‘religious’ bits. Which is obviously why Jesus got himself crucified, isn’t it?! I think you are right about the distinction between ‘as bishop’ and ‘as individual’ from the perspective of the reader, but it is a distinction that leaves me as writer very dissatisfied. After all, bishops often get criticised for not speaking their real mind, but for blandly speaking out of their ‘office’. I think what I am trying to do is be straightforward, honest and open – discriminating only in what I either do or don’t comment on. But, if I decide (wisely or unwisely) to comment on a particular issue, I fear what you will get will not be capable of distinction between ‘individual’ and ‘bishop’.

David, thanks for this. I agree with you about liking the sound of some Conservative ‘policies’, but I don’t know what lies under the ‘sound’ of the words – that’s the problem. You identify just one of the tensions in Cameron’s speech. I think it is incumbent on us to ask questions of detail – and worrying that that detail appears not to have been thought through.

>I fear what you will get will not be capable of distinction between ‘individual’ and ‘bishop’.

I’d suggest that that depends on whether you find a comprehensible and consistent way to do it :-), and that how people react is an emergent property of the tone, culture and community of readers you build on your site.

I am very happy that Bishops should speak out in a reflective way but once you go online it really is the Wild West – which is not to say it is bad. Sometimes there is exhilaration in standing up. We also have to be prepared to be wrong!

There are three aspects that I have found.

First that you do hear the rawness of people’s opinions. People will say things online they might not say to your face.It is for this reason that I always give my true name: if I am too ashamed as a Christian to own a view I probably should not be voicing it!

Second, the Conservative Conference has opened the possibility that Faith Communities will be welcomed back into the public space. The sheer anger insult and hatred of some of the comments I have seen about this from the aggressive Dawkins persuasion is astonishing. We may be in a paradox. More welcome – but having to stand our ground all the harder. These folk may not be good losers after having enjoyed the advance of secularism for many years ( under both main parties).

Third, I think the default culture of the UK, particularly in the media can be characterised as ” progressive secular”. You can test this easily. Make a comment in a gathering assuming George Bush is stupid and nobody will turn a hair. Try the same about his successor and you will feel the chill. Both are human beings with merits and demerits. ( I try to be an equal opportunity cynic). We nevertheless have a number of outstanding failures after decades of policies along those lines.

I think we might be at a tipping point, such as the times of LBJ Reagan Thatcher Blair. If you are part of the mindset of the ancient regime you will find yourself receiving more criticism than formerly as the new people become more confident to express views they were previously inhibited about.

There is a lot I could say, but I will restrict myself to answering the specific questions you ask me:

1. Why should a bishop always respond to political speeches politely

I don’t think he should. I think there is always a place for righteous anger, and that anger is given us by God to confront real evil.
I was furious with my own party, the Conservatives, in the 1990’s over its policy in Bosnia and felt extreme rage when I heard speeches defending appeasement by the likes of Douglas Hurd. But I’m not quite sure what there is to be angry about in the speech of an oppositon leader, whose party has been out of power for 12 years, trying to address the subject of poverty and social breakdown.

and what would ‘constructively’ have looked like? Agreement? Sharp questioning?

Neither. I think it might have looked like an attempt to find some common ground between what Cameron was saying and what the Diocese of Southwark is trying to do in South London, and how the Church can constructively engage in dialogue, offer suggestions, and help to shape the policy of what looks like being the next government. In your post on the Southwark ordinations, you quite rightly point out that the clergy are in 24 hour a day contact with the reality of poverty and the inner cities, and it would be good for politicians to listen to them. Is it not your responsibility to try and find ways to make such a dialogue possible ?
There seem to the clear connections between the themes of Cameron’s speech, and for example the work which Welcare is already doing in your Diocese. On the Welcare website I read:

‘Today, services are directed towards supporting and strengthening families, whatever form the family takes, single mothers to single fathers, grandparents and other carers. Its programmes are geared towards improving parenting skills and providing advice, guidance and support so that families can help themselves.’

Supporting families and helping them to help themselves: those are exactly the themes of Cameron’s speech and Conservative policy. It would be wonderful if an organisation such as Welcare, with its shared aspirations and its experience of the reality of the situation, could engage with the Centre for Social Justice in shaping Iain Duncan Smith’s proposals.

2. Do you want bishops to sanitise and spin – or say what they think and feel?

I think we have had quite enough spin under the present government to last us a lifetime. I would hope that Bishops sought to follow St Paul’s advice to ‘speak the truth in love’ by ensuring that whatever they said was (a) true
and (b) said in a spirit of charity, reconciliation and inclusiveness.

John, thank you for your response. I was talking last night about how to influence Conservative thinking rather than simply criticising it, and will discuss it further.

I don’t know you, where you live or anything about your background. I think you might like to consider that people with my background listen very differently to what Tory leaders say. I am not going to put in print here about my own family, but I would be happy to discuss it privately.

But I do not believe what I said was untrue. And I have no idea what you would have said to the prophets of the Old Testament about how they said what they said.

Well I lived in Brixton for five years, witnessed the Brixton riots in the 1980’s,
was a member of Brixton Deanery Synod and saw at first hand the excellent work of Welcare, so I think that I have some experience of what I am talking about.

+Nick – I come at things from a very different political angle to you, but I’m very happy that a Bishop is politically engaged. To bring that home, I read this and thought of you:
“When I was asked to make this address I wondered what I had to say to you boys who are graduating. And I think I have one thing to say. If you wish to be useful, never take a course that will silence you. Refuse to learn anything that implies collusion, whether it be a clerkship or a curacy, a legal fee or a post in a university. Retain the power of speech no matter what other power you may lose. If you can take this course, and in so far as you take it, you will bless this country. In so far as you depart from this course, you become dampers, mutes, and hooded executioners. As a practical matter, a mere failure to speak out upon occasions where no statement is asked or expect from you, and when the utterance of an uncalled for suspicion is odious, will often hold you to a concurrence in palpable iniquity. Try to raise a voice that will be heard from here to Albany and watch what comes forward to shut off the sound. It is not a German sergeant, nor a Russian officer of the precinct. It is a note from a friend of your father’s, offering you a place at his office. This is your warning from the secret police. Why, if any of you young gentleman have a mind to make himself heard a mile off, you must make a bonfire of your reputations, and a close enemy of most men who would wish you well. I have seen ten years of young men who rush out into the world with their messages, and when they find how deaf the world is, they think they must save their strength and wait. They believe that after a while they will be able to get up on some little eminence from which they can make themselves heard. “In a few years,” reasons one of them, “I shall have gained a standing, and then I shall use my powers for good.” Next year comes and with it a strange discovery. The man has lost his horizon of thought, his ambition has evaporated; he has nothing to say. I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don’t be gagged. The time of trial is always. Now is the appointed time.” – John J. Chapman, Commencement Address to the Graduating Class of Hobart College, 1900